Bradley: Any chance of a NOT INTERSECTS in 7.1?

In church yesterday evening, we were discussing the parts of the Bible written in the first-person (such as Ezra-Nehemiah, and parts of Daniel). I wanted to use Logos to find all of them, but couldn't.

What I really needed (in the NT at least) was:

(<LogosMorphGr ~ R?1????> OR <LogosMorphGr ~ V???1???>) NOT INTERSECTS <LDGNT = Reported Speech>

We've discussed proper NOT searching on previous occasions, but it seemed to be that it would make sense to add NOT INTERSECTS at the same time as INTERSECTS :-).

PS — Wildcards for Speakers/Addressess would have been really helpful for this search, too (e.g. {Speaker *}). The "Reported Speech" data isn't very accurate.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

I'd like to see ANY widely implemented as a wildcard for labels, extensions, datasets ...

Fr Devin Roza

I also ran into a situation where I wanted NOT INTERSECTS the other day. I wanted to find instances, if there are, in which "the Lord" (in English, or article + Lord in Greek in the NT/LXX) is used to refer to someone that isn't Jesus or God.

"the Lord" NOT INTERSECTS (<Person Jesus>, <Person God>)

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

We've discussed proper NOT searching on previous occasions, but it seemed to be that it would make sense to add NOT INTERSECTS at the same time as INTERSECTS :-).

It would have, except the demand for generalised "NOT" searching was very strong this time. (I can't find the post, but I'm sure you remember it.) Thus, in context, it didn't make sense to add one specialised operator in 7.1.

Wildcards for Speakers/Addressess would have been really helpful for this search, too (e.g. {Speaker *}).

We have an outstanding case for this.

The "Reported Speech" data isn't very accurate.

Can you provide some details? I can pass the feedback along to the team who produces that data.

Mark Barnes

It would have, except the demand for generalised "NOT" searching was very strong this time. (I can't find the post, but I'm sure you remember it.)

I do remember the conversation, but likewise couldn't find it. I understand your point, though. It certainly would be nice to have proper NOT searching.

The "Reported Speech" data isn't very accurate.

Can you provide some details? I can pass the feedback along to the team who produces that data.

There are far too many examples to give here, but direct speech tagging is inconsistent with speaker label data. So you get several occassions where there's a speaker label, but no "Reported Speech" tag. Some of those are debatable (e.g. Gen 8:21, 24:30, 25:22, 28:16-17), either because the 'speech' is internal not vocal, or because it's indirect speech. However, I understand "Reported Speech" should include both direct and indirect speech. But there are many other obvious ommissions. To give examples just from Genesis:

Genesis 26:32 — They said, “We’ve found water!”
Genesis 28:13-15 — he said: “I am the LORD…
Genesis 28:20-22 — Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me…
Genesis 31:6 — they said, “We went to your brother Esau…
Genesis 38:11 — Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household…
Genesis 40:8 — “We both had dreams,” they answered, “but there is no one to interpret them.”
Genesis 40:12-15 — “This is what it means,” Joseph said to him. “The three branches are three days…
Genesis 40:16-17 — he said to Joseph, “I too had a dream:…
Genesis 48:21-22 — Then Israel said to Joseph, “I am about to die…

There are similar examples throughout the Bible.

The long speeches found in Deuteronomy and the Prophets are also left untagged. For example, Deuteronomy 1:6-4:40 is a long speech by Moses, but it doesn't have the tagging.

If those responsible for the tagging want to examine this, the best thing would be to look at all situations where there are speaker labels, but no "Direct Speech" tagging. That's hard to do in the app (as we're discussing), but I would presume they would be able to do it more easily using your internal tools. If not, I can share a Passage List which will approximate it (with some false positives, and no doubt some missing).

MJ. Smith

Aren't the speaker/addressee labels basically grammatical/syntactic coding while reported speech is discourse tagging?

Mark Barnes

Aren't the speaker/addressee labels basically grammatical/syntactic coding while reported speech is discourse tagging?

Yes, but whilst that might lead to some differences (as I acknowledged), there shouldn't be as many differences as there are.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

There are far too many examples to give here, but direct speech tagging is inconsistent with speaker label data.

Thanks for the examples you have provided. I've passed this along to the data team.

Bradley Grainger (Logos)

Bradley: Any chance of a NOT INTERSECTS in 7.1?

Yes: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/148253.aspx

Mathematically, 7.1 and 7.10 are equal, so I think we can check this one off. [:)]

Lee

A major feature upgrade. Thanks, FL!

Mark Barnes

Thank you, thank you!